Implementation of a quality improvement programme using the Active Patient Link call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of childhood vaccinations: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation

INTRODUCTION: Call and recall systems provide actionable intelligence to improve equity and timeliness of childhood vaccinations, which have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will evaluate the effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability of a data-enabled quality improvement programme delivered in primary care using an Active Patient Link Immunisation (APL-Imms) call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of uptake in a multiethnic disadvantaged urban population. We will use qualitative methods to evaluate programme delivery, focusing on uptake and use, implementation barriers and service improvements for clinical and non-clinical primary care staff, its fidelity and sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods observational study in 284 general practices in north east London (NEL). The target population will be preschool-aged children eligible to receive diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations and registered with an NEL general practice. The intervention comprises an in-practice call and recall tool, facilitation and training, and financial incentives. The quantitative evaluation will include interrupted time Series analyses and Slope Index of Inequality. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of children receiving at least one dose of a DTaP-containing or MMR vaccination defined, respectively, as administered between age 6 weeks and 6 months or between 12 and 18 months of age. The qualitative evaluation will involve a ‘Think Aloud’ method and semistructured interviews of stakeholders to assess impact, fidelity and sustainability of the APL-Imms tool, and fidelity of the implementation by facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research team has been granted permission from data controllers in participating practices to use deidentified data for audit purposes. As findings will be specific to the local context, research ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and to stakeholders, including parents, health providers and commissioners.